Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘State Police’ Category

Two weeks before Edmonson fest, Senate & Governmental Affairs Committee members harass Livers into retirement

Posted in Ethics, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians, Senate, State Police on May 25, 2016| 15 Comments »

If you didn’t believe the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee handled Louisiana State Police (LSP) Superintendent Mike Edmonson with kid gloves a week ago (Wednesday, May 18) you need only contrast that performance with the manner in which committee members ripped into Department of Juvenile Justice Director Mary Livers two weeks earlier (Wednesday, May 4).

In all the years of political posturing witnessed in more than 40 years of covering elected officials, we have never seen anything as disgraceful and disrespectful—or as hypocritical—as the grandstanding of committee Chairperson Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans).

Nor did members Jean-Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans), Wesley Bishop (D-New Orleans), and Jim Fannin (R-Jonesboro) even make so much as an attempt at civility or professional courtesy in dealing with Livers, a veteran of 40 years in the field of corrections. Fannin, in fact, stopped just short of an outright accusation of malfeasance and misappropriation of funds in his condescending North Louisiana drawl.

Members spent the entire 80 minutes not looking at her overall performance but instead, grilling Livers about conditions at the Bridge City Juvenile Detention Center. They seem particularly fixated on her seeming inability to prevent employee turnover at the facility—even to the point of Bishop’s application of a puzzling mathematical formula to explain the significance of 30 staff vacancies at Bridge City.

Oh, but when it came to addressing the documented personnel and administrative problems in the state’s law enforcement agency (verified by LSP’s own internal documents, by the way), members took on a collective hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil persona. Instead of a vetting by the committee, the hearing turned into a coronation with the only missing stage prop being a halo. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/05/18/16942/

To watch the unabashed lovefest during the Edmonson hearing, go to the 1:11 mark at this link: http://senate.la.gov/video/videoarchive.asp?v=senate/2016/05/051816S~G_0

Yes, the Bridge City facility does have problems. Any correctional facility does and Bridge City may well be far worse than the others and Morrell may have been correct when he said he was concerned that recent events there “was not isolated.”

It was in April that several teenagers housed there broke through locked doors and gave staff a run for their money for several hours and members were justifiably concerned over the reports of violence and “mayhem” (Peterson’s word for conditions there). http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/04/bridge_city_youth_center_attac.html

But as Livers attempted to explain, she was repeatedly interrupted by Peterson who seemed to think the hearing was all about her and who made sure everyone understood she is a lawyer. Among the problems at Juvenile Justice, Livers said, is a 40 percent budget cut endured by the agency.

“There is a lack of staff there,” Livers said. “We have more than 30 vacancies and the staff we have are required to work multiple shifts to make up for the shortage and there is no money in our budget for overtime pay.” (Did we mention a budget cut of 40 percent?)

“The youth there have lots of problems or they wouldn’t be in a facility like Bridge City,” she said. “The problems are historic. When you have more than 100 kids in a facility, you have problems. Today Bridge City is at 136 youth. That’s too many kids in one place, not enough space. It’s a recipe for problems. We have a difficult time keeping people.”

As Livers was saying this, Peterson can be seen on the inset video as she shared a laugh with another committee member. http://senate.la.gov/video/videoarchive.asp?v=senate/2016/05/050416S~G_0

As evidence of Peterson’s apparent inattention to the testimony, Livers said 38 minutes into the video, “I was there (at Bridge City) yesterday.” Then, just 22 minutes later, at the one-hour mark, she asked Livers “When was the last time you were down there.”

Livers said the 30 vacancies were direct line officers. “That’s a major part of the vacancy issue. There are challenges filling social work positions. Our salaries are competitive to hire but not to keep. I’m down there every two or three weeks when we’re having these kinds of issues…”

“You’re always having these kinds of issues,” Peterson interrupted. “You say you have a passion for this. Overall, I’m not suggesting you’re not doing a good job but in this instance, it’s not adequate. Why? Even with the resources you have, if there are current vacancies and you lead the department and the vacancies are the reason that institution can’t function, that needs to be prioritized. Whatever needs to happen to get that filled, that’s your job. Every day it’s not filled, those children are at risk.”

Funny that same mindset wasn’t present two weeks later when Edmonson said in that same chair. You’d think that when a trooper is allowed for months on end to work a couple of hours and then go home to sleep for the remainder of his 12-hour shift, the driving public might be “at risk.”

When a trooper is having sex with a young female while on duty—once on the back seat of his patrol car—you’d think a committee member might wonder if the public might be “at risk” because the trooper wasn’t doing his job.

It might be reasonable to assume the integrity and reputation of the Louisiana State Police might be “at risk” when a State Police lieutenant escorts an underage girl onto the gaming floor of a Vicksburg, Mississippi, casino, tries to use his position to talk his way out of a citation (again, from LSP documents obtained by LouisianaVoice through a public records request), is fined $600 by the Mississippi Gaming Commission, and is subsequently promoted to troop commander.

Some member of the committee missed a great opportunity to pontificate about whether a state police lieutenant found to be using prescription narcotics while on duty might be placing himself “at risk.” That same member might wonder why that trooper was also subsequently promoted to troop commander.

But….nary a word from a single member—except when they took turns gushing over what a great public servant Edmonson is.

But Peterson, Bishop, and Fannin tripped all over each other in challenging Livers and her performance. And when Livers attempted to explain the hiring process, she was abruptly cut off by Peterson. Not a shred of common courtesy was displayed by either of the three. Funny how that works.

Peterson asked why there was such a high turnover—a question Livers had already addressed in describing the working conditions at Bridge City. But she gamely tried again. “There is a variety of reasons,” she said. “Most say the job was not what they thought it would be. They don’t like being called into service and working all kinds of hours because of vacancies.”

“That goes back to you,” Peterson snapped. “It’s not enough to take responsibility. You’ve been there a long time. You say you take responsibility but nothing gets done.”

“With all due respect,” Livers said, “I don’t think nothing is being done. I think a lot is being done. Is it acceptable? No, but we’ve thrown everything we have at it to make the sure the kids are safe.”

“There are 136 kids at Bridge City,” Peterson said. “Are they safe?”

“Based on the staffing we have, yes,” Livers said.

When Bishop finally got to speak, his jumbled math quickly became a bone of contention.

“I’ve tried to equate 30 vacancies for 136 kids,” he said. “Let’s say there are just 120 kids. With 30 vacancies, that’s a ratio of four to one.”

Huh? As best we could make out, he seemed to believe there were only 30 staff members before they all quit—or something like that.

“There are more than 200 staff members who are there,” Livers said, trying to bring him around—possibly to Common Core math.

“Aren’t absences even more of a reason to fill vacancies?” he asked. “Why don’t you fill the vacancies? Why would you not hire people?”

“Why would anybody not strive to fill all the positions that you have?” Livers answered.

“That’s the question most of us are asking,” said Bishop, apparently also not paying attention when Livers earlier explained why there was such high turnover at Bridge City. (What does it take to get these people to shut their mouths and listen to testimony being given?)

“We are striving to do that, Senator,” she said, coming down heavy on the word. “And we’re striving to keep those people. It’s not from a lack of desire, attention, or focus; it is a complexity of issues that culminate into a very difficult task.”

“You’re still saying it’s safe?” Peterson asked.

“Chairwoman, we’re doing everything we can…”

But again, Peterson was hell bent on interrupting. “I’m asking if you believe the facility under your jurisdiction is safe.”

“I do.”

Then it was Fannin’s turn. The former Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee before he was forced to run for the Senate after being term-limited on the other side of the Capitol rotunda asked how long the 30 vacancies had existed and what the average vacancy duration was.

He then launched into a veiled accusation of fiscal mismanagement by Livers. “I don’t recall the Department of Juvenile Justice having any excess revenues. What do you do with the funds allocated for those 30 salaries?”

Reminding Fannin of that 40 percent budget cut, Livers tried to explain that her agency had ended its fiscal years having to borrow money from the Treasury to stay afloat. “Whatever money there is goes towards operations,” she said. “We’ve ended the year short of funds for three years in a row.”

“You’re not really answering my question. You didn’t know how long the vacancies was (sic) and now you’re not wanting to answer what you use the money for.”

“We have been underfunded for the past three years, so when we have operational costs, whatever savings there may be from vacancies are shifted into operations through working with the Division of Administration,” she said. “We are one of the agencies that have suffered the most cuts.”

“But you have 30 vacancies,” Bishop said. “A deliberate decision was made to use money for vacancies for other purposes.”

“We are not deliberately not hiring people, Senator,” she said. “That seems to be the impression you’re getting.”

Peterson closed out the joint exercise in narcissism by scolding Livers one last time. “You were there yesterday and you were there three weeks ago and that was inadequate,” she said. “I don’t know who runs that facility but I would highly recommend that you get there and roll up your sleeves and you fix it (funny, no one told Edmonson to “fix” anything). And you hire these 30 people ASAP.

“And we may ask you to come back and finish this confirmation hearing before the end of the session.”

No you will not.

Your committee’s boorish treatment of Ms. Livers, in stark contrast to the butt-kissing you did with Edmonson, convinced her she’s had enough of your crap. To be perfectly blunt, she doesn’t need to be subjected to such a blatant double standard.

Accordingly, she has taken her retirement and gotten out of Dodge.

Yes, there are problems at Bridge City. No one can deny that. There are problems at every corrections facility. And committee members are within their rights to ask hard questions—but they do not have the right to ignore one problem with only syrupy words of high praise for the public face of law enforcement in Louisiana while crucifying another department head just for the sake of political posturing.

So, Sen. Peterson, why don’t you get there and roll up your sleeves and fix it? And you hire those 30 people ASAP.

Read Full Post »

What’s the price of your legislator? It depends on the issue, but Edmonson’s confirmation sale was comparatively cheap

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Legislature, Legislators, PACs, Politicians, State Police, Transparency on May 23, 2016| 2 Comments »

Rumor has it a newly-elected legislator from North Louisiana was told by a lobbyist friend there was so much at the Capitol that “You could just pick it up off the floor.”

Arriving for his inauguration back in January, he walked up the 50 steps and into the Capitol rotunda. He was no sooner in the door when he spotted a $100 bill lying on the floor. He looked at it a moment and then grunted and walked past the bill, saying, “Hmpf, I’ll pick you up tomorrow. I’m not working on my first day in Baton Rouge.” (With apologies to the late comic Brother Dave Gardner.)

That said, what’s the price of a reliable legislator these days?

Obviously, the going rate depends on a lot of factors. If, for instance, 97 oil and gas companies want a lawsuit against them for destroying Louisiana’s coastal marshlands, the price is pretty high as evidenced by the millions of dollars poured into political campaigns and lobbying efforts.

The oil companies, with virtually unlimited financial resources, spent like a drunken sailor by spreading the money around among legislators and political action committees.

On other issues, the answer might be not so much.

Take, for example, the confirmation of Mike Edmonson as Superintendent of State Police. That price apparently is a little north of $76,000.

The Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association obviously does not have the bottomless expense account enjoyed by the oil companies but it still manages to spread its money around pretty generously through its own political action committee, the Louisiana Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ PAC.

But for the purposes of this one issue—the confirmation hearings last Wednesday on Edmonson’s reappointment by Gov. John Bel Edwards, we will concentrate on only a few recipients—members of the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee, the President of the Senate and a handful of key legislative caucuses.

Last week, we watched the pathetically transparent attempt by members of the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee to avoid all questions about Edmonson’s record of allowing payroll fraud and other transgressions by those under his command. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/05/18/16942/

Somewhat puzzled by the collective amnesia of the committee (sarcasm) and its equally apparent determination not to thoroughly vet certain nominees while grilling others (realism), we thought we’d peel back the layers and take a peek at campaign contributions to members of the committee.

What we discovered proved interesting, to say the least.

Take committee Chairperson Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans), who also serves as Chairperson of the Louisiana Democratic Party:

  • Karen Carter Peterson: $3,100 in director contributions from the Sheriffs’ PAC;
  • The Women’s Caucus: $3,500;
  • The Louisiana Democratic Campaign Committee: $13,000;
  • The Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus: $25,500.

Democrats and Republicans alike benefited from the sheriffs’ PAC:

  • Wesley Bishop (D-New Orleans), vice chairperson of the committee: $1,000;
  • Jean-Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans): $4,250;
  • Greg Tarver (D-Shreveport): $1,600
  • Louisiana Republican Legislative Delegation: $8,800;
  • Jack Donahue (R-Mandeville): $2,000;
  • Jim Fannin (R-Jonesboro): $3,700;
  • Neil Riser (R-Columbia): $500;
  • Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe): $4,700

And just in case you might think the sheriffs’ influence was concentrated on just the committee members, the PAC also contributed $4,800 to Senate President John Alario (R-Westwego). You think he may have whispered in the ears of committee members to go light on Edmonson?

Granted, we’re not talking about a lot of money here—especially considering some of the aforementioned contributions date back to 2003. But it’s a steady flow of contributions to legislators who are restricted by the amount from any one contributor during a single election cycle ($2,500) is never ignored by the recipient. While the amounts of their contributions are lower, so, too, are their expenses because their districts are not statewide. It’s also enough to discourage legislators from taking the chance of pissing off the Sheriffs’ Association.

And while $76,000 contributed since 2003 may not seem like a lot, when you take into consideration the Sheriffs’ PAC contributed more than $794,000 on all candidates since that time—the vast majority of those legislators—it’s much easier to see how much more influence is purchased when the money is spread across the political landscape.

And to be sure, the Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ PAC doesn’t overlook those other legislators. The list is long and nearly every member of the legislator has received at least one contribution from the PAC. Here is the complete list of SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION CONTRIBUTIONS since 2003.

What’s the price of your legislator?

Read Full Post »

LSP report on the tangled mess in 4th Judicial District Court expected this week; should we anticipate ‘selective’ justice?

Posted in Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Fraud, Judges, Lawsuits, State Police on May 22, 2016| 7 Comments »

By Ken Booth and Zach Parker

More than 28 months ago, then-Deputy Administrator of Louisiana’s 4th Judicial District Court Julie Cunningham raised flags about senior law clerk Allyson Campbell’s sometimes prolonged absences from work while still being paid based upon time sheets proclaiming her presence.

Those time sheets were submitted to and approved variously by judges Wilson Rambo, Fred Amman, or Wendell Manning among others for whom she may have been clerking at the time.

But an inspection of Campbell’s time sheets and e-mails revealed that on seven different days Campbell was paid for hours not worked. On one of those days, she had sent an email from her I-Phone from New York where she reported having been “bumped to 9 AM Tuesday.”

The Ouachita Citizen reports video surveillance footage for that Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2014, shows Campbell was never at the courthouse. But the New York number was crossed out and the seven hours were carried from a row for “total hours worked” to a row for “annual leave used.” Judge Wendell Manning signed off on that time sheet as well as sheets on two other days when Campbell had reported working seven hours.

Cunningham’s report outlined at least 12 days in which there were questions about Campbell’s work attendance.

At the time, court officials researched the issue and determined it was “illegal for a public employee to be paid for time not worked,” according to Judge Sharon Marchman in a lawsuit later filed against her fellow judges in federal court.

But a week after the Cunningham report was discussed at “several meetings” Marchman said the court changed its work attendance policy requiring “all law clerks” to sign in and out each time they enter and leave the courthouse.

Judge Marchman’s federal suit contends, “notably, shortly after the new rule’s implementation, Campbell refused to comply and falsified her sign-in-sheet.”

A subsequent routine state audit issued early last year cited possible payroll fraud in the matter.

In the meantime, Campbell’s time card issues and alleged destroyed or hidden court pleadings in a civil action handled by the law clerk came to light in a civil lawsuit filed by an attorney who claimed her actions had thwarted efforts on behalf of his client. Specific records cited were later discovered being used as an end table and under a couch in Campbell’s office; others were believed shredded and carried to a dumpster located between the courthouse and its annex.

The Ouachita Citizen filed a public records request with the court seeking any and all documents purporting to show what if any disciplinary action may have been taken against Campbell in connection with these allegations. The court refused to turn over the documents claiming they were private, personal, and could cause among other things, “embarrassment” to the individual and/or “loss of friends.”

The Court refused to turn over any such documents claiming it would violate the privacy of Campbell. The newspaper responded with a criminal complaint to the District attorney claiming a violation of La. R.S. 44: 1-41, the Public Records Act.

The court refused to turn over the documents claiming they were private, personal, and could cause among other things, “embarrassment” to the individual and/or “loss of friends.” Then, perhaps hoping to put a lid on all this, the Court sued The Citizen, making it a costly proposition to continue its pursuit of the issue.

Let that sink in. The court filed suit against a newspaper for making a routine public records request.

If there were true justice in the 4th JDC, the suit would have been randomly assigned to Judge Marchman. But what do you think were the chances of that happening?

Citizen Publisher Sam Hanna, Jr., told LouisianaVoice that his publication had been assessed court costs in the lawsuit but he has no intention of paying them. “They can come arrest me if they want, but I’m not paying court costs on this matter,” he said.

Putting things in perspective, it’s more than a little ironic that judges who are charged with forcing other public agencies to comply with public records requests can exempt themselves from those very same laws, thereby setting a dangerous legal precedent that can only breed deep distrust of all public officials, particularly the judiciary itself.

And we haven’t even touched on the blatant message of arrogance and smugness such a lawsuit conveys.

The Citizen may never have received an answer but Marchman’s federal lawsuit against the judges last month may have provided it.

Her petition reads:

            “On April 24,2014, the judges had a meeting and agreed en banc to remove Campbell from the position of ‘senior law clerk, to terminate her stipend, and to suspend her for one month without pay. Campbell was then given a warning and a reprimand regarding not only her attendance, but also her behavior during meetings with the human resources department.”

According to Marchman’s suit, it was during Campbell’s suspension in May of 2014 that 52 files which required Campbell’s attention were found underneath a couch in her office. At issue were Post Conviction Relief applications given to Campbell to address by Judge Carl Sharp. The oldest of these discovered documents was dated November 2, 2011, three years before.

Louisiana’s Inspector General Stephen says an investigation by his department along with detectives from the state police found nothing wrong with the work hours of a law clerk for the 4th Judicial District Court.

A state audit had pointed to possible payroll fraud when an inspection of time sheets revealed the chief law clerk had turned in time sheets for work on days she was not even at the courthouse. Those time sheets were approved by her supervising judges.

The allegedly falsified Campbell time sheets, said to have been borne out by courthouse security camera video showing she was a no-show there on the questioned ‘work days,’ and a subsequent allegation of cover-up by four Ouachita Parish District Court Judges, prompted a fifth District Judge, Sharon Marchman, to file a federal court lawsuit against all of them for retaliating against her for “trying to expose Campbell’s history of payroll fraud and document destruction” while acting under color of law.

Whether Marchman was aware is not known, but state Inspector General Stephen Street had by then already decided interviews his office had conducted at the courthouse led him to conclude “the available facts do not provide sufficient cause for the arrest of Ms. Campbell for any criminal office, [and] we are closing our file and taking no further action in this matter.”

In his letter to Ouachita-Morehouse Parish District Attorney Jerry Jones on April 15th, Street outlined how “several 4th Judicial District Judges, as well as other local attorneys, the current and former court administrator, employees of the Clerk of Court, (Louise Bond),” and other court employees and assistants as well as Campbell herself. Campbell, he wrote, had denied destroying or hiding or destroying any court records or pleadings.”

Street mentioned only that interviews had been conducted with the principals to the complaint and all had assured that nothing improper had taken place with respect to Campbell’s being paid based upon the time cards that tended to contradict that.

It is not clear from Street’s letter whether his investigator ever saw any documentary evidence supporting the original allegation of payroll fraud.

District Attorney Jones at the outset referred the allegations of wrong-doing to the state police who wound up working in concert with the OIG’s north Louisiana investigator, Heath Humble.

Since then, the DA has consistently referred all questions regarding the status of the case to the office of the Louisiana Attorney General, Jeff Landry.

Accordingly, a public records request for documentation or any statement regarding the status of the investigation long since closed by the local and state investigators was answered by Shannon Dirmann, an Assistant Attorney General who wrote on May 9th: “Our office is in the process of determining what, if any, records are subject to this request, and, if so, whether any privileges or exemptions apply. This may take some time. You will be notified whether records have been located and are responsive.” In other words, ‘we’ll get back to you.’

Interesting indeed, since Joseph Lotwick, the General Counsel for the Attorney General’s office had answered a similar records request on May 10—one day later—from LouisianaVoice with “I have enclosed a copy of the Inspector General’s April 15, 2016 letter to District Attorney Jerry Jones as it is a public record.”

“I trust that this response is sufficient.”

When a copy of an attorney’s lawsuit against Campbell was requested, it was learned it had been sealed.

In response to our own public records request the court administrator Judge Ben Jones, himself one of the defendants named by Marchman’s suit, produced a document showing Campbell has been awarded steady pay increases in spite of questions regarding her actions.

In the Ouachita court case there is documentation which appears to demonstrate false claims of work not performed, the hiding of at least 52 post-conviction release pleadings, and/or official court documents allegedly shredded or otherwise destroyed.

District Attorney Jones said he may have the official findings of the Louisiana State Police investigation this week.

That could prove embarrassing for either virtually the entire bench of judges at the 4th JDC should detectives actually detect payroll fraud has been committed—or for the LSP itself should that report find no wrongdoing took place.

That’s because it would fly directly in the face of LSP’s own actions taken against Lt. Paul Brady of Troop D in Beauregard Parish who his own agency determined had “padded time sheets” submitted by troopers under his supervision.

He was officially suspended for violation of the code of conduct and ethics, albeit only a near-meaningless 24-hour suspension. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/05/10/rank-and-file-lsp-display-more-integrity-than-supervisors-how-long-will-gov-edwards-tolerate-edmonson-liability/

LouisianaVoice cited at least five state troopers on May 10th who said Brady instructed them to pad their time sheets to reflect 12 hours even though they worked shorter shifts or were not even on duty.

One trooper told Internal Affairs that Brady tried coaching him on what to say if someone asked about the time. The Trooper reportedly informed Brady that he was not going to lie.”

The Brady suspension letter stated, “You signed the … timesheets knowing that they had worked less hours. You signed the … described biweekly timesheets knowing that the hours related to firearms transition were not accurate.”

Moreover, Chris Guillory, the Commander at Troop D who was Brady’s supervisor and who was transferred out of Troop D is said to have been aware of Brady’s padding of time sheets but took no action.

One would hope those 4th District Court Judges who approved their law clerk’s time sheets for work on days on which she was not present are paying attention. The events at Troop D amounted payroll fraud which in other (apparently selective) cases have resulted in criminal charges.

But Campbell has friends, or rather, relatives in high places which most likely makes the judges hesitant to come down on her. A sister is a prominent personal injury attorney in Monroe and their father is a powerful banker who is married to the daughter of politically active attorney Billy Boles.

So why else would we imply that criminal charges for payroll fraud are selective? Simply this:

https://louisianavoice.com/2016/03/13/dcfs-funding-slashed-necessitating-driveway-visits-but-overworked-caseworker-is-arrested-for-falsifying-records/

As they used to say in those “This-is-your-brain; This-is-your-brain-on-drugs” TV ads:

Any Questions?

 

Read Full Post »

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

Posted in Ethics, Legislature, Legislators, Notable Quotables, Politicians, Senate, State Police on May 18, 2016| 2 Comments »

“I’m not perfect but gosh, I try to be.”

—State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson at Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on his confirmation for another term.

Read Full Post »

Senate confirmation hearings on Edmonson’s appointment more resembled marathon butt kissing than search for truth

Posted in Ethics, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Senate, State Police on May 18, 2016| 13 Comments »

To call Wednesday’s confirmation hearings by the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee on the reappointment of State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson a love fest would be grossly inaccurate.

What transpired during the 21-minute “grilling” of Edmonson more closely resembled a group hug—or more accurately, a group butt-kissing—than a real consideration of the candidate’s qualifications to serve another four years as head of the state’s law enforcement agency.

The committee took no vote on confirmation on Wednesday but will re-convene before the current session closes to vote on all nominees.

Before going any further, it is important to know which committee member asked specific questions about how a state trooper who twice had sex with a woman while on duty—once in the back seat of his patrol car—managed to keep his job under Edmonson.

It is vital to know which member asked how a trooper in Troop D was allowed to work a couple of hours and then go home to sleep the rest of his shift for years before LouisianaVoice revealed the payroll fraud and why three separate supervisors who knew of that activity but did nothing went undisciplined.

Which committee member inquired about the promotion of a Troop D lieutenant to captain and troop commander—after it was learned he was abusing prescription drugs on the job? And which member wanted more information about that same captain being caught lying (a firing offense) but who was never disciplined?

Likewise, voters should know which committee member demanded to know how a lieutenant in Troop F could be caught abetting an underage girl’s entry onto the gaming floor of a Vicksburg, Mississippi, casino, fined more than $600, and then promoted to captain and commander of Troop F.

It would be interesting to know which committee member probed the reason Jill Boudreaux was allowed to take an early retirement incentive buyout, receive 300 hours in accrued leave pay, retire for one day and return to work—with a promotion to a higher position—the very next day, all while pocketing about $59,000 to which she was not entitled.

And which committee member demanded to know why high-ranking state police administrative personnel were allowed to reside in the State Police Academy VIP quarters while going through marital problems? The latest to do so is Interim Undersecretary Custodian of Records of the Office of Management and Finance within the Department of Public Safety Maj. Jason Starnes who is reported to be currently living there, courtesy of Louisiana taxpayers. The VIP quarters are unofficially known as the “Dupuy Suite” in honor of Edmonson’s Chief of Staff Charles Dupuy reportedly stayed there on the state dime following the breakup of his first marriage.

And of course, we’d all love to know who spoke up to ask questions about that furtive amendment tacked onto an innocent bill in the closing minutes of the 2014 legislative session that almost gave Edmonson an illegal $30,000 per year bump in his retirement. Only a tip to LouisianaVoice from an anonymous source thwarted that attempt even though the bill, with the amendment intact, passed and was actually signed by Bobby Jindal.

With no need to keep readers in suspense any longer, here are the identities of the committee members vigilant enough to seek answers to those nagging questions:

No one, no one, no one, no one, no one, no one, no one, and no one.

Here is the link to the video of the 92-minute committee meeting. Scroll over to the 1:12 (that’s one hour and 12 minutes into the hearing) mark to hear Edmonson inspiration opening remarks and those of the committee members (if you can stomach it).

http://senate.la.gov/video/videoarchive.asp?v=senate/2016/05/051816S~G_0

That’s correct. The people you sent to Baton Rouge to look out for our interests never opened their yaps a single time to ask a single question about the string of improprieties linked to the administration of one Mike Edmonson. Not one, not once.

That’s not to say a few of the members didn’t speak up. Several did and their fawning and slobbering all over Edmonson was nothing short of nauseating.

Take Sen. Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe): the guy was so infatuated with Edmonson that he couldn’t stop talking. Literally. The man didn’t seem to know when to shut up. Even Edmonson appeared embarrassed at Walsworth’s blathering about what a wonderful job he was doing as head of state police, keeping us safe and all.

At least Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia) did ask one question that was relevant. That was about the state troopers detailed to patrol the New Orleans French Quarter. (Surely you didn’t think it was Riser who asked about that amendment that nearly gave Edmonson that raise. It was Riser who authored the amendment in the first place, though he first denied it before finally fessing up.

Sens. Greg Tarver (D-Shreveport), Troy Carter (D-New Orleans), Jack Donahue (R-Mandeville), Jim Fannin (R-Jonesboro), and Committee Chair Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) each took turns trying to out-snorkel each other and folks, it was not a pretty sight. To say they were blowing smoke up his toga simply isn’t descriptive enough.

The nearest anyone came to alluded to any of the myriad of problems that have brought trooper morale down to ground zero was when Peterson made a passing remark about “disgruntled employees.”

Peterson then cautioned Edmonson that there are differences between Bobby Jindal and Gov. John Bel Edwards (no kidding?) and that there are not different philosophies that he should be cognizant of. The jury’s still out as to just what the hell she was talking about.

After the committee had strewn rose petals (and possibly even palm leaves) in Edmonson’s path, he was appropriately humble.

“I’m not perfect, but gosh, I try to be,” he gushed.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »